If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   43% of gun owners think that the laws covering gun sales should be stricter. Easy for them to say   (firstread.nbcnews.com) divider line 449
    More: Fail, Morning Joe, Americans, gun laws, assault weapons, Just Seventeen, United States Public Debt  
•       •       •

954 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Apr 2013 at 11:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



449 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-03 03:12:08 PM

Tomahawk513: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Tomahawk513: Well, I'd be willing to install vehicle interlock devices into every new car.  I'd be willing to give up Flaming Dr. Peppers and ban alcohol over a certain proof.  I'd be willing to limit the amount of alcohol one could purchase at one time.  Those are a few examples that I think I could live with.  What would you be willing to give up to make a dent in gun-related deaths?

Vehicle locks can be disabled.  Even if the rest of your solutions did work, they wouldn't solve 100% of the problem.  Aren't you willing to do just a little more to put in even more of a dent to that number?

You have not answered the question.  I answered your question, it's now your turn to answer mine.  What would you be willing to give up to make a dent in gun-related deaths?

/It's absolutely brainless to demand that a solution be effective 100% of the time, or solve 100% of the problem.


No more than we already have.  I think that since we have fewer fatalities from firearms, than we do from alcoholic beverages shows we're doing a fantastic job as far as firearm safety is concerned.
 
2013-04-03 03:12:26 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: demaL-demaL-yeH: I'll offer this quote in response:
"No, but we do enact stricter blood alcohol limits, raise the drinking age, ramp up enforcement penalties, charge bartenders for serving drunks, and launch huge public awareness campaigns to stigmatize the dangerous behavior in question, and we do all those things because it might just help bring drunk driving rates down - I don't know - by 2/3s in a few decades." - J. Stewart

But clearly if alcohol is still about 5x as deadly as a firearm is, this isn't enough, right?  Why does anyone NEED alcohol in the first place?  Let me guess, you have a small penis and you need alcohol to get girls to sleep with you...


It's an all or nothing kind of thing for you. My perspective is that reducing the occurrence of Firearm-Unlucky Sudden Onset Bullethole Syndrome (F-U SOBs) is a Very Good Thing(TM).
Certainly, we should look at better identification and medical treatment for alcoholics.
/Are you a closeted size queen? You seem to be obsessed with my penis. (Well, it seems to accompany obsessions with firearms.)
//One other note: Inebriated people cannot consent to sex.
 
2013-04-03 03:12:54 PM

BayouOtter: Tomahawk513: Black-and-white thinking, case in point.  You're equating being inconvenienced, or giving up a small portion of a right, with giving up all rights.  Thank you for illustrating my point.  And like I said, if it sucks, we can always get rid of it.

If you steal a penny, you're as much a thief as if you steal a hundred bucks. 'Giving up a little bit' of a right is no different than all of it. And if we can legislate away one amendment, whats to stop the rest from being legislated away?


Incorrect.  We have given up the right to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater, yet we have not lost the right to free speech.
 
2013-04-03 03:13:20 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: sammyk: Funny how you guys always run to the AWB that is never going to happen. Do you not support universal background checks? If not why? Difficulty:There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.

There IS a list. I found that out when a Pennsylvania State Police trooper told me every firearm I own. The list is composed of every firearm purchased with a background check. Remember, Pennsylvania doesn't have registration. Yet there it was, a comprehensive compilation of everything I have.

You know what? I don't have a problem with that. I am in favor of 100% background checks, for two reasons: First, it will help, if only in a small way, to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. My concern is what we will have to do about the firearms we already have, but it's a small concern. All of mine have checks and records of the checks to go with them. The idea of a list does not concern me, because to confiscate the weapons they also have to abrogate the 4th Amendment, and the ACLU and others will put the kibosh on that.

Second, it will get the gun-control people to shut the hell up about the so-called "gun show loophole", which was neither confined to gun shows nor was a loophole. if they had wanted private sales covered they would have written it that way. But let's let it go away. One less rallying cry for the gun-control people, and it's such a small thing that we can hand it to them.


I find any database or list like that troubling for any reason, not just firearms. I feel there should be a compeling reason for any level of government to keep personal details on its citizens. For instance I am ok with them keeping a DB on pistol permits or CCW. Law enforcement has a legitemite need to verify the authenticity of any documentation you provide them if you encounter them. They DO NOT have a need to know what kind of hardware you have. I would preferstate governments do the same as NICS and destroy the record of successful purchases in a certain timeframe. The background check has served it purpose and I can not think of a compelling reason to keep it that does not shiat all over your privacy.

For me it's just a simple privacy issue. If we ever get to the point that the govt is confiscating firearms this little experiment is over anyway. I just do not see it happening. But I have a small libertarian streak when it comes to matters of privacy.

I disagree with your second point. We should not be enacting laws for the purpose of shutting whiners up. And there are plenty of whiners on both sides of the gun debate. Thanks for not being one and actually being willing to engage in honest debate. That's getting rare on fark.
 
2013-04-03 03:14:11 PM

BayouOtter: If you steal a penny, you're as much a thief as if you steal a hundred bucks. 'Giving up a little bit' of a right is no different than all of it. And if we can legislate away one amendment, whats to stop the rest from being legislated away?


That is the slippery slope argument that I bet $1000 Obama lectured on at U of Chicago as a valid concern where Constitutional rights are concerned, but now is a non-issue when he is advocating curtailing your rights.

/my Con Law prof used the old 'Camel's nose under the tent' analogy
 
2013-04-03 03:14:26 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: BraveNewCheneyWorld: But current laws for guns have already curbed fatalities.  Sure we haven't reached 100%, but there appears to be no set goal in mind for the gun control advocates.  You're less likely to be in a mass shooting than you are to be killed by drowning, so why are you pushing for more limits?  What is the magic number of deaths per year that is acceptable to you?

Now that we agree gun control policies can reduce gun related deaths, we're just haggling over price. I understand that the number of gun-related deaths in the country will never be zero per year. That's an unrealistic goal. I would set a goal that attempts to match the per-capita gun death rate of other developed nations.


You cannot compare other nations to ours.  The do not have the same levels of social and economic diversity as we do.  Guns aren't the sole factor to violence.  If they were, you could drop a crate of bazookas into a stadium of brain surgeons and wind up with a blood bath, the fact is though, that nothing would happen.
 
2013-04-03 03:14:57 PM

BayouOtter: Really, the question should be 'how do we keep people from wanting to do harm?'


No, there shouldn't be a single "the question". They're all valid questions and require valid responses.  Minimizing the impact of gun violence is going to require a layered approach that starts with helping people who need help, keeping people who can't be helped from becoming armed, and being prepared to deal with those who manage to get armed anyway once it's otherwise too late. If you're not willing to address all three of those issues, you're not willing to address the problem seriously.

And you can mince about with that histrionic crap you posted at the end of your comment all you like, it's just histrionic crap meant to demonize your opponent in lieu of any valid point. Nobody has ever advanced the argument that guns have some mystical power about them that makes people kill other people, that's just the sort of stupid strawman rhetoric gun proponents invent because they want to paint their opposition as nutty instead of using logical, valid arguments based on objective facts and reasoned opinions.

Despite being misguided in their approach to the specifics, gun control advocates are still the only side of this debate that seems to want to address all facets of the problem.
 
2013-04-03 03:15:46 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Dusk-You-n-Me: BraveNewCheneyWorld: But current laws for guns have already curbed fatalities.  Sure we haven't reached 100%, but there appears to be no set goal in mind for the gun control advocates.  You're less likely to be in a mass shooting than you are to be killed by drowning, so why are you pushing for more limits?  What is the magic number of deaths per year that is acceptable to you?

Now that we agree gun control policies can reduce gun related deaths, we're just haggling over price. I understand that the number of gun-related deaths in the country will never be zero per year. That's an unrealistic goal. I would set a goal that attempts to match the per-capita gun death rate of other developed nations.

You cannot compare other nations to ours.  The do not have the same levels of social and economic diversity as we do.  Guns aren't the sole factor to violence.  If they were, you could drop a crate of bazookas into a stadium of brain surgeons and wind up with a blood bath, the fact is though, that nothing would happen.


www.walkoffwalk.com
 
2013-04-03 03:15:48 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: How? Handing a bullet launcher over to somebody without knowing whether that person is a criminal or mentally ill and letting that person walk away with it is irresponsible.


"Bullet launcher"..nice imagery there.
 But you failed to note how is it irresponsible.  After all, is it irresponsible to hand over a gas guzzler to somebody without knowing whether that person is a drunk or drug user or human trafficker?

Additionally, does NICS somehow posses new Minority Report-type powers where it can predict if somebody will commit a crime with their gun in the future?
 
2013-04-03 03:15:51 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: BraveNewCheneyWorld: demaL-demaL-yeH: I'll offer this quote in response:
"No, but we do enact stricter blood alcohol limits, raise the drinking age, ramp up enforcement penalties, charge bartenders for serving drunks, and launch huge public awareness campaigns to stigmatize the dangerous behavior in question, and we do all those things because it might just help bring drunk driving rates down - I don't know - by 2/3s in a few decades." - J. Stewart

But clearly if alcohol is still about 5x as deadly as a firearm is, this isn't enough, right?  Why does anyone NEED alcohol in the first place?  Let me guess, you have a small penis and you need alcohol to get girls to sleep with you...

It's an all or nothing kind of thing for you. My perspective is that reducing the occurrence of Firearm-Unlucky Sudden Onset Bullethole Syndrome (F-U SOBs) is a Very Good Thing(TM).
Certainly, we should look at better identification and medical treatment for alcoholics.
/Are you a closeted size queen? You seem to be obsessed with my penis. (Well, it seems to accompany obsessions with firearms.)
//One other note: Inebriated people cannot consent to sex.


I guess my comments went over your head, they were analogous to anti gun arguments commonly presented here.
 
2013-04-03 03:15:59 PM

CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: Dusk-You-n-Me: BraveNewCheneyWorld: they wouldn't solve 100% of the problem.

That's not the goal. You're arguing with yourself.

Well, what exactly is the goal?

With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".  At what point will people decide that we're finally safe enough?

I'm gonna say its somewhere between 0 and 30,000


Dusk-You-n-Me: GanjSmokr: With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".

Less than 30,000 a year. As I stated before, I would set a goal that attempts to match the per-capita gun death rate of other developed nations.


So if we can shave off ~2,000 firearms deaths per year, you'll both be OK with those numbers?  Fair enough.
 
2013-04-03 03:16:18 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: You cannot compare other nations to ours.


Sure I can. I just did.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: The do not have the same levels of social and economic diversity as we do.


They're different than us, so we're uniquely powerless to reduce gun violence. I do not agree with that.
 
2013-04-03 03:17:39 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: You cannot compare other nations to ours.  The do not have the same levels of social and economic diversity as we do.  Guns aren't the sole factor to violence.  If they were, you could drop a crate of bazookas into a stadium of brain surgeons and wind up with a blood bath, the fact is though, that nothing would happen


That is the ugliest claim for American exceptionalism ever.
 
2013-04-03 03:18:07 PM

GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: Dusk-You-n-Me: BraveNewCheneyWorld: they wouldn't solve 100% of the problem.

That's not the goal. You're arguing with yourself.

Well, what exactly is the goal?

With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".  At what point will people decide that we're finally safe enough?

I'm gonna say its somewhere between 0 and 30,000

Dusk-You-n-Me: GanjSmokr: With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".

Less than 30,000 a year. As I stated before, I would set a goal that attempts to match the per-capita gun death rate of other developed nations.

So if we can shave off ~2,000 firearms deaths per year, you'll both be OK with those numbers?  Fair enough.


No, but I'd be more OK than I am now. Let's keep going!
 
2013-04-03 03:19:38 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: I guess my comments went over your head, they were analogous to anti gun arguments commonly presented here.


?????
Like most first shots in the dark, that one had the ants worried.
 
2013-04-03 03:19:45 PM

CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: Dusk-You-n-Me: BraveNewCheneyWorld: they wouldn't solve 100% of the problem.

That's not the goal. You're arguing with yourself.

Well, what exactly is the goal?

With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".  At what point will people decide that we're finally safe enough?

I'm gonna say its somewhere between 0 and 30,000

Dusk-You-n-Me: GanjSmokr: With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".

Less than 30,000 a year. As I stated before, I would set a goal that attempts to match the per-capita gun death rate of other developed nations.

So if we can shave off ~2,000 firearms deaths per year, you'll both be OK with those numbers?  Fair enough.

No, but I'd be more OK than I am now. Let's keep going!


And there is it... what non-zero number makes you not say "Let's keep going!"?
 
2013-04-03 03:19:52 PM

GanjSmokr: So if we can shave off ~2,000 firearms deaths per year


www.washingtonpost.com

That's just homicides buuuut the UK, France, and the Scandinavian countries seem to be doing a pretty good job. Getting close to those numbers is a good goal.
 
2013-04-03 03:20:36 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: BraveNewCheneyWorld: You cannot compare other nations to ours.

Sure I can. I just did.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: The do not have the same levels of social and economic diversity as we do.

They're different than us, so we're uniquely powerless to reduce gun violence. I do not agree with that.


Can you back up those statements with scientific data?  Quite honestly, your claims cannot be taken seriously.  It's the same level of simplistic thinking that appeals to racists.
 
2013-04-03 03:21:08 PM

GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: Dusk-You-n-Me: BraveNewCheneyWorld: they wouldn't solve 100% of the problem.

That's not the goal. You're arguing with yourself.

Well, what exactly is the goal?

With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".  At what point will people decide that we're finally safe enough?

I'm gonna say its somewhere between 0 and 30,000

Dusk-You-n-Me: GanjSmokr: With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".

Less than 30,000 a year. As I stated before, I would set a goal that attempts to match the per-capita gun death rate of other developed nations.

So if we can shave off ~2,000 firearms deaths per year, you'll both be OK with those numbers?  Fair enough.

No, but I'd be more OK than I am now. Let's keep going!

And there is it... what non-zero number makes you not say "Let's keep going!"?


I dunno, lets stop around Turkey and see how our rights are impacted? Cuz that right there is farking embarassing
 
2013-04-03 03:21:48 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: BraveNewCheneyWorld: You cannot compare other nations to ours.  The do not have the same levels of social and economic diversity as we do.  Guns aren't the sole factor to violence.  If they were, you could drop a crate of bazookas into a stadium of brain surgeons and wind up with a blood bath, the fact is though, that nothing would happen

That is the ugliest claim for American exceptionalism ever.


Exceptionalism?  I'm saying that we have a different set of problems.  You cannot simply put every industrialized nation into the same basket.
 
2013-04-03 03:21:53 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Dusk-You-n-Me: BraveNewCheneyWorld: You cannot compare other nations to ours.

Sure I can. I just did.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: The do not have the same levels of social and economic diversity as we do.

They're different than us, so we're uniquely powerless to reduce gun violence. I do not agree with that.

Can you back up those statements with scientific data?  Quite honestly, your claims cannot be taken seriously.  It's the same level of simplistic thinking that appeals to racists.


You mean like blaming our gun crime rates on the fact that we have more poor brown people here? Or is that OK to do?
 
2013-04-03 03:22:27 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Can you back up those statements with scientific data?  Quite honestly, your claims cannot be taken seriously.


I don't think my sarcastic uniquely powerless statement needs to be scientifically backed up.
 
2013-04-03 03:22:41 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Can you back up those statements with scientific data?  Quite honestly, your claims cannot be taken seriously.  It's the same level of simplistic thinking that appeals to racists.


That comment is you. You are arguing with the monkey in the mirror.
 
2013-04-03 03:23:21 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: BayouOtter: Mind sourcing your numbers?

2011: 32,1635


I would have liked you linking me directly to the source, as opposed to a partisan page like you did. I consider the CDC a reliable source, but it is only mentioned for 2010 and 2011. The other numbers may well be made up and I'm not going to chase citations for you. I do like how they use preliminary, and not final reports for their numbers - I wonder why?

From your report, Table 2, page 18
Cause                                         Raw Number      Rate
Motor Vehicle Accidents                 34,677               11.1
Falls                                                26,631               8.5
Accidental Firearm Discharge             851               0.3
Drowning                                         3,555                1.1
Suicide (Firearm)                            19,766               6.3
Suicide (Other)                                18,519              5.9
Homicide                                            4,852             1.6
Homicide (Firearm)                          11,101             3.6


Weird how these numbers and the FBI numbers don't match, but I'm not seeing a gulf of difference between the rates of suicide with or without firearms, and those rates are much higher than homicide. A lot lower than falls or car crashes, though!

Thanks for the numbers.

 
2013-04-03 03:23:22 PM
How many Fudds are thinking:  'Hell, I don't have an AR or anything like that.  Sure ban those things.'

Only they probably don't realize that quite a few of their hunting weapons are classified by the grabbers as "assault weapons".
 
2013-04-03 03:24:12 PM

BayouOtter: liam76: BayouOtter: liam76:
He seems to be full of shiat, as ar the links he rests on. They imply you must fill out a from within 24 hours of a gun being lost/stolen, whent he law says you must only "report it" within 24 hours of "knowing about it". I make a phone call and I have reported on it.

Just make sure you call the attorney general!

They also mention the authorities. You call the cops, you are good. If you are really concerned that they would get you on not contacting the AG, you can shoot him an email.

Page 14, line 17
within 24 hours after the person discovers the theft or loss, to the Attorney General and to the appropriate local authorities.''

You can't just 'call the cops'. I really hope you don't go on a week-long trip and lose your gun - you've got 24 hours to get back to civilization or you get slapped with a felony. (You also can't just report things over the phone, there are papers to sign and statements to make that require being face to face with officers.)


Where does the law say you muct fill out forms or make statements in pwrson.  If I make a "call" I have reported it.

BayouOtter: No, its legal if it is the season and the other fellow has all his licenses with him. No mention of hunting game that has no fixed season, which is nice. Also, if the and portions from Section C applies (You claim it doesn't, but then I ask why 'and' is there. Do you have a legal background or citation? Without it, it is unclear) you better be on your home and curtilage.


If it has no fixed season, and doesn't require a permit, it is "in season" and you are "properly licensced".

Three reasons stuff from "C" doesn't apply to "D".

Most places you can't hunt from your curtilage, as that would be right next to your house.
There is nothing "above" C which says it must meet C+D to work.
The "and" was in section C(iii), that means it applies to C(iv), or to a subset of C(iii).  Stuff in "D" is a higher level.

Once again this would be a bad law, but it is great starting point for a law.
 
2013-04-03 03:24:16 PM

CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: Dusk-You-n-Me: BraveNewCheneyWorld: they wouldn't solve 100% of the problem.

That's not the goal. You're arguing with yourself.

Well, what exactly is the goal?

With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".  At what point will people decide that we're finally safe enough?

I'm gonna say its somewhere between 0 and 30,000

Dusk-You-n-Me: GanjSmokr: With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".

Less than 30,000 a year. As I stated before, I would set a goal that attempts to match the per-capita gun death rate of other developed nations.

So if we can shave off ~2,000 firearms deaths per year, you'll both be OK with those numbers?  Fair enough.

No, but I'd be more OK than I am now. Let's keep going!

And there is it... what non-zero number makes you not say "Let's keep going!"?

I dunno, lets stop around Turkey and see how our rights are impacted? Cuz that right there is farking embarassing


So let's make more laws and regulations to try to get us to a situation you like and then look back to see how it impacted our rights.  Brilliant.

/see Patriot Act
 
2013-04-03 03:26:26 PM

Adolf Oliver Nipples: sammyk: Funny how you guys always run to the AWB that is never going to happen. Do you not support universal background checks? If not why? Difficulty:There will not be a list of gun owners for you to be paranoid about.

There IS a list. I found that out when a Pennsylvania State Police trooper told me every firearm I own. The list is composed of every firearm purchased with a background check. Remember, Pennsylvania doesn't have registration. Yet there it was, a comprehensive compilation of everything I have.

You know what? I don't have a problem with that. I am in favor of 100% background checks, for two reasons: First, it will help, if only in a small way, to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. My concern is what we will have to do about the firearms we already have, but it's a small concern. All of mine have checks and records of the checks to go with them. The idea of a list does not concern me, because to confiscate the weapons they also have to abrogate the 4th Amendment, and the ACLU and others will put the kibosh on that.

Second, it will get the gun-control people to shut the hell up about the so-called "gun show loophole", which was neither confined to gun shows nor was a loophole. if they had wanted private sales covered they would have written it that way. But let's let it go away. One less rallying cry for the gun-control people, and it's such a small thing that we can hand it to them.


I actually do have a problem with that. While I do, in general, support expanded background* checks I don't like the idea of any government entity having an inventory of my belongings. If I want to buy a gun it seems like I should get my background check run and the gun dealer should get a reply saying yes or no. Depending on licensing restrictions it could come back with yes for class A, B and no for C,D (completely arbitrary classifications, only for example's sake). Then, once I pass the background check, I should be able to buy any amount of anything I choose that I've been approved for.
The Constitution says I can own guns. The background check says I'm not disqualified. That's the end of it. I don't see why they should be privileged to a list of my guns or my model trains or my StarWars toys or anything else I have in my home.

*I'm all for checks on sales, even private sales, but they better be very explicit on some of the rules regarding transfers. I can't see why a person couldn't loan their rifle out to a friend for hunting season without having to worry about federal weapons charges.
 
2013-04-03 03:26:30 PM
Dusk-You-n-Me:
[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]

That's just homicides buuuut the UK, France, and the Scandinavian countries seem to be doing a pretty good job. Getting close to those numbers is a good goal.


Maybe if we had matching systems of universal health care, education, and other factors, maybe ditched our systemic racism, poverty, income inequality, the drug war, and some other things....we could see numbers like that.
 
2013-04-03 03:26:42 PM

BayouOtter: I would have liked you linking me directly to the source, as opposed to a partisan page like you did.


gunpolicy.org is partisan? U Penn is partisan? Are they Ds Rs or Is?

BayouOtter: The other numbers may well be made up and I'm not going to chase citations for you.


I'm not asking you to chase citations, which is why I provided them. You don't like the data, sure, but that doesn't make it any less true. Jesus christ dude.
 
2013-04-03 03:27:32 PM

BayouOtter: Maybe if we had matching systems of universal health care, education, and other factors, maybe ditched our systemic racism, poverty, income inequality, the drug war, and some other things....we could see numbers like that.


YES! We should also do those things! I'm am totally on board with that!
 
2013-04-03 03:28:14 PM

GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: Dusk-You-n-Me: BraveNewCheneyWorld: they wouldn't solve 100% of the problem.

That's not the goal. You're arguing with yourself.

Well, what exactly is the goal?

With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".  At what point will people decide that we're finally safe enough?

I'm gonna say its somewhere between 0 and 30,000

Dusk-You-n-Me: GanjSmokr: With regards to guns, what non-zero number of deaths is "acceptable".

Less than 30,000 a year. As I stated before, I would set a goal that attempts to match the per-capita gun death rate of other developed nations.

So if we can shave off ~2,000 firearms deaths per year, you'll both be OK with those numbers?  Fair enough.

No, but I'd be more OK than I am now. Let's keep going!

And there is it... what non-zero number makes you not say "Let's keep going!"?

I dunno, lets stop around Turkey and see how our rights are impacted? Cuz that right there is farking embarassing

So let's make more laws and regulations to try to get us to a situation you like and then look back to see how it impacted our rights.  Brilliant.

/see Patriot Act


No, lets continue doing nothing while our per capita gun death rate is obscenely higher than every other country and pretend like there's no problem at all cuz you don't think you should have to fill out a form and have your background checked in order to buy a combusion powered high velocity rapid fire portable projectile weapon.
 
2013-04-03 03:29:03 PM

CPennypacker: You mean like blaming our gun crime rates on the fact that we have more poor brown people here? Or is that OK to do?


It's ok to do if you have data backing it up, don't you agree?

Dusk-You-n-Me: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Can you back up those statements with scientific data?  Quite honestly, your claims cannot be taken seriously.

I don't think my sarcastic uniquely powerless statement needs to be scientifically backed up.


Ah, so you're just here to threadshiat.

demaL-demaL-yeH: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Can you back up those statements with scientific data?  Quite honestly, your claims cannot be taken seriously.  It's the same level of simplistic thinking that appeals to racists.

That comment is you. You are arguing with the monkey in the mirror.


Lol whut?  I have to cite data to ask you for data?
 
2013-04-03 03:30:18 PM

CoolHandLucas: liam76:Did you run a background check on your friend? No? That's irresponsible.

How, exactly, do you find it "irresponsible"?

Would you find it less "irresponsible" if I told you said friend had previously been vetted by DHS and FBI and allowed to carry firearms onboard airliners as a federal agent?

Would you find it more "irresponsible" if it was just some guy that drove a truck for a living?

And for the record, I'm not skeered of Bammer and his jack-booted homeland security thugs (note the dripping sarcasm) coming to grab my guns as a result of background checks: I own a Title II device, they already know who and where I am.

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x634]


How about "uncivilized"? Does that capture you and your friend?
 
2013-04-03 03:30:34 PM

moanerific: How many Fudds are thinking:  'Hell, I don't have an AR or anything like that.  Sure ban those things.'

Only they probably don't realize that quite a few of their hunting weapons are classified by the grabbers as "assault weapons".


[citation_needed.jpg]
Yah, I'm certain that all those Remington 700s, Winchester 30-30s, and Browning Superposeds are going to be classified as "assault weapons" by the "grabbers".
 
2013-04-03 03:31:03 PM

udhq: Lawyers With Nukes: And the inexorable expansion of State-sponsored violence marches on.

So society's right to self defense trumps the individual's right to self defense, because once nobody is safe, EVERYONE will be safe. But first, it will be enforced by...you guessed it, men with guns showing up to assault and disarm you, backed by a license to murder.

Don't be confused, gun control advocates LOVE guns, but only in the hands of the privileged.

FYI, "But I may need them to shoot cops" isn't as compelling an argument against gun control as you think it is.....


Clever strawman, there! If only you could use your intellect to elevate the discussion, rather than confuse it.
 
2013-04-03 03:33:51 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Ah, so you're just here to threadshiat.


What? You asked me to back up my claims with scientific data - while replying to my sarcastic comment. How am I supposed to back up sarcasm with data? Were you referring to a different post of mine? 36 posts in and you're the first to accuse me of threadshiatting. Hell, ten years in and you're the first to accuse me of threadshiatting. I'm a pretty reasonable guy on here. Maybe re-calibrate your last request because I'm having a hard time following what exactly has gotten you so upset.
 
2013-04-03 03:35:00 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: moanerific: How many Fudds are thinking:  'Hell, I don't have an AR or anything like that.  Sure ban those things.'

Only they probably don't realize that quite a few of their hunting weapons are classified by the grabbers as "assault weapons".

[citation_needed.jpg]
Yah, I'm certain that all those Remington 700s, Winchester 30-30s, and Browning Superposeds are going to be classified as "assault weapons" by the "grabbers".



Here's one for you cupcake: http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/03/01/popular-standard-shotgun-could- b e-banned-under-proposed-bill/

These idiots will classify ANYTHING they want to as an "assault weapon".  Don't know if this passed muster in this form, but it just shows that they are willing to ban guns that have nothing in common with AR/AK pattern rifles.
 
2013-04-03 03:36:51 PM
BraveNewCheneyWorld:
It's ok to do if you have data backing it up, don't you agree?

I don't get it. If you underline it does that make it true?
 
2013-04-03 03:39:19 PM

CPennypacker: combusion powered high velocity rapid fire portable projectile weapon.


You don't like the military standard "bullet launcher"?

/OK, it's really "lightweight, air-cooled, gas-operated, magazine-fed, shoulder- or hip-fired rifle with a rotating bolt, actuated by direct impingement of gas" for the AR series.
 
2013-04-03 03:40:12 PM

CPennypacker: No, lets continue doing nothing while our per capita gun death rate is obscenely higher than every other country and pretend like there's no problem at all cuz you don't think you should have to fill out a form and have your background checked in order to buy a combusion powered high velocity rapid fire portable projectile weapon.


You sound like you might need a nap.

Screw it - let's just do whatever it takes to get gun deaths down that extra 7-8% you want from where they are now and look back only after we're done to determine what rights we've infringed upon.

/you must have really loved the Patriot Act.
 
2013-04-03 03:42:44 PM

geek_mars: *I'm all for checks on sales, even private sales, but they better be very explicit on some of the rules regarding transfers. I can't see why a person couldn't loan their rifle out to a friend for hunting season without having to worry about federal weapons charges.


Excellent point! The unintended consequences could be very very bad. While you as the gun owner have a responsibility to not lend your gun to someone that is bugfark crazy, where do we draw reasonable lines?

Sidepoint: It's already illegal to let someone have access to your guns if you know they are a felon or otherwise disqualified.
 
2013-04-03 03:43:54 PM

GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: No, lets continue doing nothing while our per capita gun death rate is obscenely higher than every other country and pretend like there's no problem at all cuz you don't think you should have to fill out a form and have your background checked in order to buy a combusion powered high velocity rapid fire portable projectile weapon.

You sound like you might need a nap.

Screw it - let's just do whatever it takes to get gun deaths down that extra 7-8% you want from where they are now and look back only after we're done to determine what rights we've infringed upon.

/you must have really loved the Patriot Act.


Why are you operating under the assumption that it would take extreme measures to reduce gun deaths significantly? Or do you just consider any measure an extreme measure.

And your Patriot Act argument is bullshiat. I didn't want the Patriot act. Are you saying the only way to combat terrorism was the Patriot act? Why is your world so black and white?
 
2013-04-03 03:44:26 PM

moanerific: demaL-demaL-yeH: moanerific: How many Fudds are thinking:  'Hell, I don't have an AR or anything like that.  Sure ban those things.'

Only they probably don't realize that quite a few of their hunting weapons are classified by the grabbers as "assault weapons".

[citation_needed.jpg]
Yah, I'm certain that all those Remington 700s, Winchester 30-30s, and Browning Superposeds are going to be classified as "assault weapons" by the "grabbers".


Here's one for you cupcake: http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/03/01/popular-standard-shotgun-could- b e-banned-under-proposed-bill/

These idiots will classify ANYTHING they want to as an "assault weapon".  Don't know if this passed muster in this form, but it just shows that they are willing to ban guns that have nothing in common with AR/AK pattern rifles.


From your link:
"Boyd asked Senate Democrats about Brophy's concerns. They sent her a statement saying an amendment dealing with thats issue is currently being drafted and will be presented in a committee hearing Monday. What that amendment looks like and whether it passes remains to be seen."

So, twinkie (more rare than cupcakes), a potential problem in proposed legislation was recognized and is being addressed.
OH NOES!
 
2013-04-03 03:44:28 PM

GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: No, lets continue doing nothing while our per capita gun death rate is obscenely higher than every other country and pretend like there's no problem at all cuz you don't think you should have to fill out a form and have your background checked in order to buy a combusion powered high velocity rapid fire portable projectile weapon.

You sound like you might need a nap.

Screw it - let's just do whatever it takes to get gun deaths down that extra 7-8% you want from where they are now and look back only after we're done to determine what rights we've infringed upon.

/you must have really loved the Patriot Act.


Well, the wonderful thing about laws, is that if they really, really suck, we can elect politicians that will repeal them.
 
2013-04-03 03:49:03 PM

CPennypacker: I didn't want the Patriot act. Are you saying the only way to combat terrorism was the Patriot act? Why is your world so black and white?


This from the guy who insists that gun restrictions must be part of any plan for gun crime reduction...
 
2013-04-03 03:50:24 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: moanerific: demaL-demaL-yeH: moanerific: How many Fudds are thinking:  'Hell, I don't have an AR or anything like that.  Sure ban those things.'

Only they probably don't realize that quite a few of their hunting weapons are classified by the grabbers as "assault weapons".

[citation_needed.jpg]
Yah, I'm certain that all those Remington 700s, Winchester 30-30s, and Browning Superposeds are going to be classified as "assault weapons" by the "grabbers".


Here's one for you cupcake: http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/03/01/popular-standard-shotgun-could- b e-banned-under-proposed-bill/

These idiots will classify ANYTHING they want to as an "assault weapon".  Don't know if this passed muster in this form, but it just shows that they are willing to ban guns that have nothing in common with AR/AK pattern rifles.

From your link:
"Boyd asked Senate Democrats about Brophy's concerns. They sent her a statement saying an amendment dealing with thats issue is currently being drafted and will be presented in a committee hearing Monday. What that amendment looks like and whether it passes remains to be seen."

So, twinkie (more rare than cupcakes), a potential problem in proposed legislation was recognized and is being addressed.
OH NOES!



My argument is that they will try ban anything.  Even the ones who honestly don't want to ban everything often lack the knowledge about what they are crafting legislation for.
 
2013-04-03 03:51:03 PM

CPennypacker: GanjSmokr: CPennypacker: No, lets continue doing nothing while our per capita gun death rate is obscenely higher than every other country and pretend like there's no problem at all cuz you don't think you should have to fill out a form and have your background checked in order to buy a combusion powered high velocity rapid fire portable projectile weapon.

You sound like you might need a nap.

Screw it - let's just do whatever it takes to get gun deaths down that extra 7-8% you want from where they are now and look back only after we're done to determine what rights we've infringed upon.

/you must have really loved the Patriot Act.

Why are you operating under the assumption that it would take extreme measures to reduce gun deaths significantly? Or do you just consider any measure an extreme measure.

And your Patriot Act argument is bullshiat. I didn't want the Patriot act. Are you saying the only way to combat terrorism was the Patriot act? Why is your world so black and white?


Because I personally believe it would take extreme measures to reduce gun deaths to a number that you personally find acceptable.

I'm using the Patriot Act as an example of doing what it takes to accomplish a goal and worrying about the negative impacts later.  I think it was a bad idea then and I think it's a bad idea now.

Tomahawk513:Well, the wonderful thing about laws, is that if they really, really suck, we can elect politicians that will repeal them.

OK, that made me chuckle.  Thanks.
 
2013-04-03 03:53:39 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: CPennypacker: I didn't want the Patriot act. Are you saying the only way to combat terrorism was the Patriot act? Why is your world so black and white?

This from the guy who insists that gun restrictions must be part of any plan for gun crime reduction...


We await your constructive suggestions that directly address the problem of Firearm-Unlucky Sudden Onset Bullethole Syndrome (F-U SOBs) with unbated breath. (No farking way I'm holding my breath until you produce an intelligent, cogent, and relevant comment.)
 
2013-04-03 03:53:40 PM
Am I the only one around here who is farking tired of the simple fact that the only gun violence events that are used for these arguments are the ones where mostly white people are getting killed instead of the vast amounts of gang related violence in large cities?
 
Displayed 50 of 449 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report